Contact centers are frequently retained by an enterprise to contact the enterprise's customers. One common application involves the contact center contacting customers having a credit account with, or loan from, the enterprise having a past due balance. The contact center may contact the customer to discuss an outstanding balance, payment terms, etc. Such calls are sometimes referred to as “debt collection” calls, even though the caller may not fall within a legal definition of a debt collector. In many cases, the contact center may repeatedly call the customer in attempts to contact the customer.
The common availability of caller-identification (“caller-ID”) technology allows the called party to see the calling number for an incoming call before the call is answered. The calling party number is also sometimes referred to as the ANI (“automatic number identification) based on the capability that delivered the calling party telephone number. For purposes herein, the term ANI, calling party telephone number (“CPTN”), and calling party number (“CPN”) are assumed to have the same meaning.
As can be expected, called parties often attempt to avoid answering debt collection calls or other calls which may be unwanted. Caller-ID technology, as well as other services that block calls from a specified originating telephone number, can impede the communication between the contact center and the called party. Called parties may report such telephone numbers as originating from debt collectors, or report such numbers as being telemarketing calls. The report may be received by a service provider that tags the CPTN as being a ‘robocall’ Using the same ANI value for repeated debt collection calls (or any other) may result in that number being reported as being associated with debt collection (or some other type of activity). The call may then be blocked to the called party by the called party's service provider. Furthermore, if an out-of-region ANI is presented to the called party, the called party may be hesitant to answer the call as compared to a call having a local ANI, i.e., one having the same area code and central office code. Furthermore, if the ANI is out-of-region, the called party may be more hesitant to return the call, since long distance charges may be involved.
Using a local ANI is a common practice in various applications. However, with various ‘robocall’ related call processing services being offered by service providers, a particular ANI or CPN may be “tagged” as being a robocall of some form. Frequently, such calls are presented with a label or other text-based indicator informing the called party the call may be a certain type of call, e.g., “spam” or a “scam.” Such calls may be blocked or the called party may not answer the call because of the label. If the call is erroneously tagged as being a robocall, then the called party may not answer, nor receive an important call. For example, an emergency or other unusual situation may cause a business, school, or public safety office to originate a large number of calls in a short time period. It is possible that the robocall call processing techniques may erroneously identify such calls as being robocalls, and incorrectly label or block the calls. The intended called parties may not receive important notifications.
Thus, it is necessary to define procedures and techniques related to the use of the CPN that can mitigate the adverse impacts that may be encountered due to robocall processing. It is with respect to these and other considerations that the disclosure herein is presented.